Michael Voris and 40,000 Denominations

Alpha & Omega Ministries

Subscribe

Download

Share

00

Comments are disabled.

00:13

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona, this is The Dividing Line.

00:19

The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us, yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence.

00:28

Our host is Dr. James White, Director of Alpha Omega Ministries and an Elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church.

00:34

This is a live program and we invite your participation. If you'd like to talk with Dr. White, call now at 602 -973 -4602 or toll free across the

00:43

United States, it's 1 -877 -753 -3341. And now with today's topic, here is

00:51

James White. You know, he just keeps getting me in trouble. His name is Sam Shamoon, the

00:56

Assyrian Encyclopedia, and he likes to send me these emails and frequently they're just, it's just a link.

01:04

But sometimes there's a little, little nudge, a little wink, wink, like, hey, you know, you might want to respond to this guy and, you know, and I don't think it's the first time that the

01:14

Assyrian Encyclopedia has sent me a link from Michael Voris of RealCatholicTV .com

01:22

because I've looked at a few. I remember I played one just, I think last week sometime. My wife was listening to it in the kitchen and I played a link and there really wasn't enough there to bother with.

01:36

But today, this afternoon, he sent me one over. And when I started listening to this thing,

01:42

I just, I just could not believe my ears what I was, was hearing.

01:48

And so we're going to, we're going to sneak it into the rotation here. We're still going to get to Bart Ehrman and we're still going to get to Diya Mohammed.

01:56

But talk about an eclectic program today. We are also, we're going to talk about Roman Catholicism and the

02:04

Immaculate Conception and the myth of now inflation has created 40 ,000 denominations.

02:15

Boy, some people just do not do their homework at all. But hey, who is, I saw, I saw

02:21

Tiquette had put a, James Swan had put an article up on the blog, I think last year or the year before about another

02:28

Catholic apologist who had said there are literally millions of Protestant denominations.

02:34

So anyways, good deal with that. And then we're going to deal with, with Islam and we're going to deal with the textual criticism of the

02:43

New Testament. Where else on what other webcast or any other cast of any kind can you get what you get here on The Dividing Line?

02:52

Nowhere at all. Which is why I would refer you once again to the note that Rich posted to the blog while I was in St.

03:02

Louis, and that is we need a server. And unlike certain

03:08

Roman Catholic apologetics organizations that claim to need tens of thousands of dollars every month just simply to exist, we need, well, last

03:19

I checked, $4 ,000, we've already gotten one of that, $4 ,000 to pay for the server, which will give us, actually over the long haul will cost us less than how we're doing right now.

03:31

But it'll also give us, well, right now our server is a poor little PC sitting over in a corner at a server farm someplace and they're changing all that.

03:39

Then we have to, we have to get up at the time. So if you like the program, notice that because we need to, we need to do that.

03:46

Anyways, I started listening to this YouTube video by Michael, it's called

03:55

The Vortex. Now, maybe I'm just jealous because I don't know, this guy's got so much hair, it almost looks fake.

04:02

It almost looks, doesn't it? Did you look at it? Did that not look like a rug to you?

04:08

It looks like a rug to me, too. It does not look real. I'm sorry. It must be, but the way he combs it, it just it does not look like it's supposed to be where it is.

04:17

And I, am I right? Yeah, I mean, he needs to stop taking hair tips from Donald Trump.

04:24

Oh, that's right. He does look a little bit like the like he's doing the Trumpster thing there. And he's obviously much younger, but he does this

04:31

Vortex thing. And he likes, you know, just last week I listened to one where he was just ripping on Soloscriptura.

04:37

He didn't know what Soloscriptura was, but he was just really ripping on it. And what can I say?

04:43

Oh, what? What's that? Seriously? We met the goal for the server.

04:53

And that's if that's what I'm if that's what I'm reading there, then I need to announce that, that we actually made the goal for the server.

05:03

That was only like a week. You people are awesome. You're the best folks out there. That is so awesomely cool.

05:11

If I can verify here, it's about 36. There's about a 30 second lag between when

05:17

I say things in the program and when I see stuff pop up in the channel. So if I can get, yeah,

05:25

Hasim says you can donate to the graphic designer. Yes, we need to triple the graphic designers salary.

05:34

In fact, we could we could we could increase it by a hundredfold and we could still afford it. I thought artists did their best work when they're starving.

05:43

Well, son, if you ever find yourself a wife, don't expect him to design anything for you right now after that one, because he ain't gonna be doing any any artwork for you at all.

05:53

Yes, it's true, Doc. OK, it was less than 24 hours. Oh, my goodness. Well, see,

05:59

I haven't seen Rich for quite some time now. He's he's been off doing important stuff elsewhere.

06:05

So, hey, scratch what I said. You know, we're straight up front about that stuff. Thank you very, very much for that.

06:12

Anyhow, I'm never going to get through any of this if I don't get started. So I'm going to get started.

06:17

I started listening to this thing and it did not take long for me to realize that we had something here we need to be looking at.

06:25

If we could develop a radio free, you know, radio free Geneva would actually work for Roman Catholicism, too, because Geneva, Rome, stuff like that.

06:34

And Geneva sent all these missionaries down into Italy that almost all of them died. But if we had a theme, this would this would really be a good thing to have a theme for because goodness.

06:45

But well, let's just start listening to to Michael Voris and we'll stop and start because we won't get very long before we run into problems.

06:53

So let's let's listen in. Hello, everyone, and welcome to the Vortex, where lies and falsehoods are trapped and exposed.

07:00

I'm Michael Voris. Well, immediately lies and falsehoods are trapped and exposed. Well, that's good.

07:05

I you know, it's a good thing to to trap and expose lies and falsehoods. But given what we're going to hear on this,

07:12

I really think that we would have a very different definition of the truth. And by the way, we're always looking for Roman Catholics who are willing to debate.

07:21

It's hard to find them anymore. Despite the fact someone sent me a link to a line to a post on the ever interesting but always truth channel challenged

07:33

Catholic answers forums where you can find some folks who just don't ever get out, you know, folks who seemingly just don't look beyond the very narrow walls of the

07:47

Catholic answers world. Someone had posted something about, you know, we still got this article on the website about how many of the leading

07:54

Roman Catholic apologists will not debate, at least not debate me. And someone had responded, oh, all those people debate, he's just dishonest.

08:03

He's just a liar. And it's like, oh, I'd love to get those folks, you know, like get Guardian to call back in.

08:08

How many years has it been now since Guardian said he was going to call in and give us his list of all my errors is about about three years.

08:14

I'm like that now. Hey, Cranmer's in channel. Cranmer, I need that debate quick, man.

08:19

I was about to send him an email. Now I'm using it. Now I'm using the dividing line to do personal emails. Isn't that great? But I'm putting the last touches on the

08:29

I've got to get a syllabus in by Monday for my Golden Gate class, because I'm teaching apologetics starting the second week in January for Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, where it was said

08:38

I would never teach again, but I'm teaching there again. And I want to use the video.

08:45

I want to get the MP4 of the video and I want to put it in one. I suppose

08:50

I could just link to what Cranmer has posted. That's one way to do it.

08:57

I don't want to necessarily do that. And so anyway, I need to get that information from him because I want to use the

09:05

Abdullakunda debate. Oh, he's not even listening. Good. Great. Wonderful.

09:11

Someone explain to him what I just said in channel and let him know

09:18

I need to find out when I get the Abdullakunda video, because I really want to really want to have the students watch that because I thought it was one of the best ones we had we had available.

09:29

Algo just posted the particular thread in channel. Why won't Catholic apologists debate

09:34

James White? And I'm giving my guy here a hard time. We'll give him a harder time.

09:40

Give him a act all British around him. That would be the way that would drive any Aussie crazy. All right,

09:46

I'll give it to you. Just stop acting British. And that'll that'll take care of that. All right.

09:51

We need to get serious here. Let's get back to Michael Voris in the Vortex. And let's let's get to it here.

09:58

When Catholics celebrate the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, we have the esteemed privilege. Yes, privilege of being caught up in the creative mind of God the

10:06

Father in a desire he had from all eternity, except that it's a dogma that did not become a dogma until 1854 and was unknown, absolutely unknown in in the early church.

10:20

In fact, there are lots of lots of quotations you can provide about that.

10:25

I mean, I I loved, you know, St. Bernard's argument against the concept, how many people had argued against it and things like that.

10:35

And I like the comment of Ludwig Ott in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, page 200 and 201. The doctrine of the

10:41

Immaculate Conception of Mary is not explicitly revealed in Scripture. Neither the Greek nor the Latin fathers explicitly teach the

10:47

Immaculate Conception of Mary. So if this is in the mind of God, it took him quite some time to finally get it around to revealing it to men, which would actually make it a new revelation because it's neither found in Scripture nor tradition.

10:58

So it's a it's a revelation outside of the canon of the New Testament itself. And so I just thought

11:06

I'd add that to the rather interesting description that Mr. Voris provides of this feast of the

11:12

Immaculate Conception. Most Protestants have no desire to hear talk of the Immaculate Conception of our Blessed Mother because, well, except those of us who actually debate people, as I have twice on this particular subject.

11:26

So it's not a matter of our not wanting to talk about it. I don't mind talking about it. It's a great illustration of where the

11:33

Roman Catholic Church has defined something, De Fide, that has absolutely, positively no foundation in either

11:42

Scripture or tradition. Now, the only thing it has less, if you can have no, if you can have less than none, is a bodily assumption.

11:51

But both of them, now De Fide dogmas of the Romanist system that have nothing to do with Scripture or tradition, which demonstrates that Roman Catholicism is not bound by any external authority outside of itself.

12:04

These are both excellent examples of sola ecclesia, the church as the sole and final rule of faith for itself.

12:14

It's not a three -legged stool or anything like that. It's not church and tradition, magisterium. No, it's just the magisterium, period, end of discussion.

12:21

I've always said that's Rome's position. And the Immaculate Conception, the bodily assumption of Mary, prove that that is, in fact,

12:27

Rome's position. Because the brilliant truth of this doctrine shakes some of their foundational principles with such a force that they come tumbling down.

12:36

Really, I've never met anybody who, upon seriously studying the history of the

12:44

Immaculate Conception, seriously studying the documentation that demonstrates that seven popes have taught against it, and that there are numerous early church fathers who talked about Mary's sin, directly contrary to what

12:58

Mr. Voris is going to say here in a moment, and then looked at the political maneuvering, the very human aspects of the final definition itself that ever felt anything shaken.

13:16

In fact, the only people I could think of that felt shaken in such a study were people who actually believed Rome was the infallible church.

13:24

I certainly have not found anything in that kind of material that in any way challenged me.

13:31

In fact, it just simply affirmed very, very deeply the reality of Rome's false authority claims.

13:39

But practically every Protestant, which means Baptist, Lutheran. OK, now listen here. He's going to list about six denominations.

13:49

Then he's going to start mixing denominations. He's going to talk about evangelicals, which would cross over some of the others that he's talking about.

13:55

They're evangelical Lutherans, evangelical Baptists, so on and so forth. But then listen to the number, folks, because remember, you can go back on the blog, search for 33 ,000 denominations.

14:06

You will find lengthy, extensive blog articles with PDF images in them of original sources demonstrating beyond all possible dispute that the argumentation being used by Roman Catholic apologists about 33 ,000 denominations, or now as you're going to hear even more than that, is absolutely positively a bogus misreading of a source that is without any defense.

14:45

Steve Ray tried to defend himself when I exposed him. And of course, he just demonstrated he's a very dishonest man, that he has absolutely no interest or love for truth at all.

14:55

He is a self -promoter from beginning to end. That's who Steve Ray is. And any

15:00

Roman Catholic apologist who continues to baselessly use these grossly inflated numbers is just demonstrating that, hey, as long as the church, as long as it serves the church, who cares if it's true or false?

15:13

I mean, they literally are following the path of the inquisitors who, as they turn the crank of the rack and hear the screams of their victims, think they're doing it because, well,

15:24

Mother Church has told me to do it. It's just it's a sad, sad thing. But that's the reality of the situation.

15:32

Let's click the right one here. Mormon, Methodist, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Evangelical, Fundamentalist, Congregationalist, and the whole lot of 40 ,000 different Protestant faiths would be shocked out of their mind.

15:47

40 ,000 different Protestant. Faiths, he said it 40 ,000

15:57

Protestant faiths. Well, Mr. Mr. I'd like to know where you got that number. I know where the 33 ,000 number came from.

16:04

I know what the World Christian Encyclopedia actually says, and I know the World Christian Encyclopedia, in its collection of denominations, lists 8 ,973 denominations under Protestant.

16:20

And that the only way you can get to even close to 33 ,000 is if you include the

16:27

Independents, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Gnostics, Bogomils, Sweden Borgianists, the

16:34

Arab radio TV networks, 19 denominations worth, Japanese Oneness Pentecostals, 14 denominations worth, and add them all in and surely, surely the

16:47

Japanese Oneness Pentecostals are the results of Sola Scriptura and the Protestant Reformation.

16:53

I'm sure that's exactly where they came from. Right. And remember, it also includes over, what is it, 234

17:02

Roman Catholic denominations. Do you accept that, Mr. Voris? So do you believe there's 234

17:07

Roman Catholic churches? Not just churches, but actual denominations, churches? That would be that would be very interesting.

17:15

And I wonder if Mr. Voris also... No, the two... Whoa, stop. I didn't give you permission to continue on. I've got two pointing devices here.

17:21

I clicked the wrong one. So let me let me list some of the others you have to throw in here for Mr.

17:28

Voris's numbers to work on. British Israelites, eight denominations, Afro -Caribbean Zionists, only one of them, thankfully, but it had to be due to Sola Scriptura, gay, lesbian, homosexual tradition.

17:40

Oh, that's due to Sola Scriptura, white led word of faith, prosperity, 17 denominations,

17:46

Latin, right, Catholic. Oh, yeah, they're Protestants. They're thrown in there. Independent Jehovah's Witnesses.

17:53

The No Church Movement. Ah, why not? I love those. Old Catholic, 26 denominations lay at the foot of Sola Scriptura.

18:02

Isolated radio churches. I, as I said in my article, I just report the facts. And single congregations.

18:09

Oh, great. That's the one you just, when you have no place else to put them in, you throw them in there. And this is all due to Sola Scriptura.

18:15

I wonder if Mr. Voris would likewise believe what's in the source on the very next page, the very next page talks about persecutors and their victims from AD 33 to 2000.

18:27

And it talks about people who, it talks about Christians who have been killed. And it talks about their persecutors and it says secular governments by far the most 55 .597

18:39

million over 2000 years. Uh, atheists, which overlap with the above 31 .5

18:45

million. Muslims are right up there at 9 .1 million. Um, ethno -religionist animists, 7 .5

18:54

million, but at number five, number five on the list, ladies and gentlemen, according to the same source,

19:00

Roman Catholicism. Yes. Roman Catholics have killed 4 .95

19:06

million Christians. Now, do you, uh, do you accept that Mr.

19:13

Voris same source that you're inflating your numbers from same source?

19:20

Uh, do you accept that one? I wonder, I don't get the feeling that he probably would, but you know, a lot of information has been on our website for quite some time.

19:28

In fact, let's see, this article was posted. When did I post this one? This was, uh,

19:33

August 27th, 2007. It's been up there, uh, over four years. And so I suppose if Mr.

19:41

Voris had utilized the, uh, Oracle of all knowledge, uh, Google that, uh, he would have, uh, would have known about that.

19:48

But, uh, for some reason, uh, he didn't. So, uh, so much for the 40 ,000 nominations.

19:55

Now we're going to hear the, your founders believe in the immaculate conception concept.

20:00

But let's, before we allow him to embarrass himself with a statement, let's provide a context.

20:07

What is the context of such a statement? Well, let's think about it.

20:13

Um, the time of the Reformation, Rome itself had not dogmatized this belief.

20:22

It was a matter of private belief. You could, or could not believe it. And we can document all sorts of big names who did not believe it.

20:34

There were numerous people who argued against it in the medieval period. And so it was a matter of piety.

20:41

And so it's easy to quote Luther and his soft spot for Mary and in his piety believing in something like this.

20:49

But I can guarantee you something, folks, I can guarantee you something. If Rome had defined this as a de fide doctrine then and said, you must believe this or it's the, the fire for you, that would have changed everything.

21:05

But you see, at the time there were Roman Catholics who agreed or disagreed.

21:12

It was a matter of dispute and discussion. It was, it divided, you know, Dominicans and Franciscans and all the rest of that stuff, they came along in that form a little bit later on.

21:20

But again, it is anachronistic as Roman Catholic apologists tend to be anachronistic rather often.

21:27

It is anachronistic to re -insert into history the arguments that are going on now as if they would have been relevant at that time.

21:45

And so when he says that all these people, all those 40 ,000 denominations would just be blown away if they knew what

21:52

Luther and Zwingli said. Um, sir, we do know. And those of us who actually take these things seriously have already looked at these things and are well aware of the fact, but let's continue listening.

22:05

Two founding fathers of their 16th century revolt against the Catholic church, each agreed with the doctrine of the immaculate conception.

22:16

No, they agree with the concept that was not yet a doctrine or a dogma.

22:22

See how different that is. Most people, they just hear, I just love when people in some of the debates, they'll get up and,

22:29

Hey, did you know Luther said this? And they don't seem to have any concept of what anachronism is.

22:37

Reading into a, an ancient context, or in this case, an older context, a dispute that simply wasn't happening yet.

22:46

That shows they don't even understand the history of the development of their own dogma at that particular point in time.

22:53

Um, then Martin Luther said, quote mother Mary, like us was born in sin of sinful parents, but the

23:01

Holy spirit covered her sanctified and purified her so that this child was born of flesh and blood, but not with sinful flesh and blood, the

23:12

Holy spirit permitted the Virgin to remain a true natural human being of flesh and blood, just as we, however, he warded off sin from her flesh and blood so that she became the mother of a pure child, not poisoned by sin as we are.

23:27

And all Rick Zwingli said, quote, I esteem immensely the mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate

23:34

Virgin Mary. Now, even there, just simply finding the term immaculate does not mean that a person used it, meant it the way that Roman Catholics mean it today.

23:44

That's more anachronism. When they go looking for quotations in early church fathers, they frequently make that mistake as well.

23:51

And so that citation alone does not even begin, uh, to establish the position regards to Zwingli.

23:59

It's irrelevant one way or the other, but I've certainly seen that. In fact, in the debate that I did with Farrar, Farrara, Christopher Farrara.

24:08

Um, when was that? August of 2010, I think. Um, yeah, uh, he dredged out a false citation, a pseudo citation from Augustine.

24:20

Uh, to try to substantiate his position. Remember check citations when

24:25

Roman Catholics make them folks, because Rome has a long history of using false citations were long, long history of using false citations.

24:36

So how has it come to pass that the beliefs about Mary of the leaders of the Protestant reformation or revolt, which is more accurate, have not survived down to the present day.

24:46

After all, Marian doctrine as taught in the pre -reformation era drew its inspiration from the witness of sacred scripture and was rooted in Christology and stretched back to the virtual roots of the ancient

24:59

Christian faith. That is bogus and would be happy to debate

25:05

Mr. Boris on that subject bogus. What's scriptural witness. There is no scriptural witness to the immaculate conception of the bodily assumption of Mary.

25:12

None. And neither was the belief of the early church. Certainly the primitive church.

25:18

It's just, it's the facts are just so overwhelming. I could, I could win that debate, quote, nobody but Roman Catholics.

25:26

I mean, I just, I just quoted Ott, didn't I? The doctrine of the immaculate conception of Mary is not explicitly revealed in scripture, neither the

25:34

Greek nor the Latin fathers explicitly teach the immaculate conception of Mary. So if you want to start engaging in the most, uh, you know, creative ways of Well, you know, they use the term immaculate and, and maybe it meant this.

25:48

And it, you know, if you want to start trying to shoehorn stuff in, go ahead. It doesn't work well in debates.

25:54

Really doesn't work well in debates. Doesn't work well during cross -examination. Um, not, not at all, but if, if that's where you want to go, then then that's where you want to go.

26:03

But that's the best that they can do. The real reason for the break with the past must be attributed to the sort of rabid passion of the followers of the

26:12

Reformation and the consequences of some Reformation principles. Even more influential in the break with Mary was the influence of the

26:19

Enlightenment era, which essentially questioned or denied the mysteries of all faith. Yeah, that's why, uh, that's why the people who are the least likely, uh, to believe in Rome's imaginative extra revelations and dogmatic definitions about Mary that are so completely offensive to the real

26:40

Mary and so completely derogatory, uh, to the, the truth about who

26:47

Jesus Christ is. And so detract from his, his glory.

26:52

Uh, the people who are the most likely to reject those are the people who believe in, well, the inspiration of scripture.

26:59

That's not a supernatural thing. And the harmony of scripture and the sufficiency of scripture and, and the

27:04

Trinity and the deity of Christ, the very people who are defending these things far more often than Rome ever does and far more effectively than Rome ever does.

27:13

Yeah, that's, that's wise because, uh, we're the children of the Enlightenment that, that must, that must be it.

27:19

Unfortunately, the Marian teachings and preachings of the Reformers have been covered up by their most zealous followers.

27:27

Oh yeah. Covered up. Yeah. That's, uh, we've never ever talked about these things. No, nobody who teaches early church history or anything like that has ever discussed the viewpoints of Zwingli or Luther.

27:39

Nah, nah, there's nobody. Nobody does that with damaging theological and practical consequences.

27:46

Nowhere in Christian, now listen to this, listen to this. Nowhere Christian literature prior to the arrival of the

27:52

Protestants, 15 centuries, centuries after Jesus. Do you ever, ever hear of our blessed mother being called a sinner, but whether stated implicitly or explicitly, that is exactly what current

28:08

Protestant theology must say about the mother of God. If you catch that, never, ever in 15 centuries, 15 centuries, really?

28:24

Well, um, may I, may I note, um, well -known church historian,

28:31

J. and D. Kelly. He's a pretty well -known guy. Listed such notables as Irenaeus in his work against heresies, book three, section 16, paragraph seven,

28:43

Tertullian on the incarnation of Christ, section seven, origin homilies in Luke 17.

28:50

Um, they all taught that Mary committed acts of personal sin. Now he's doesn't really have a dog in this fight, so to speak.

28:59

Um, how did, how did they, how did J. and D. Kelly come up with this? Others who made reference directly to personal acts of sin on Mary's part included

29:08

John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, and Basil. None of them had the slightest idea of the

29:14

Immaculate Conception, didn't bother any of them to mention these things. Now, now here you have a guy, uh, who comes to us and he says, never, and not once in Christian literature ever has anyone ever said

29:33

Mary was a sinner. And yet the resources, the citations are all over the place.

29:39

They're, they're right in front of the eyes of anybody who would dare, anybody who would dare to even look.

29:48

How in the world can, can he make such a statement?

29:56

I, I, I, I don't know. It must be ignorance. It must just be, well, I've, you know,

30:01

I, I heard somebody say that. Maybe he heard, you know, uh, some Catholic apologist said it.

30:07

So he's just, he's just gonna repeat it, but it's untrue. It's just, it's just grossly untrue.

30:14

And it's so easy to demonstrate that even

30:19

Augustine, Augustine exempted Mary from acts of personal sin.

30:26

I mean, he's certainly far enough down the road that the exaltation of Mary has gone a long ways by the time you get to, you get to Augustine.

30:38

And while he exempted Mary from acts of personal sin, he did not exempt her from the stain of original sin.

30:47

Now Pelagius, the heretic exempted Mary and many others from the stain of original sin, but Augustine said that Mary died due to inherited sin,

30:58

Sermon 2 on Psalm 34. He spoke of Mary receiving the grace of regeneration.

31:06

He likewise taught that Christ alone was sinless. And it took about 1400 years for his influence to be overcome before Ineffabilis Deus, the papal statement defining the doctrine could see the light of day, but his influence had to be overcome for that to happen.

31:33

We see that Mr. Voris is simply completely and utterly in error in the statements that he has made on this subject so far.

31:45

If they are going to be true to their beliefs, this is what happens when the Holy Spirit does not guide a religion.

31:53

It falls into error. Now catch this. We're led by the Holy Spirit, but everything I've said so far has been a complete lie.

32:00

It's easy for people to document where I have just, I have looked into your eyes through this video camera and I have either demonstrated my abject ignorance or my complete dishonesty.

32:12

One of the two. Not sure which. I don't know the man. So let's just say he's never listened to the other side.

32:19

It's just, let's just peddle the Roman Catholic side. And let's not even listen to this. Well, the problem is, if he even read the

32:24

Roman Catholic side, he'd have to realize that his rosy perspective on this is not quite accurate, but the church is true and the

32:35

Holy Spirit leads us and we're infallible. It preaches wrong doctrine. It leads people astray.

32:40

And now for the whole crowd of Catholic false ecumenists out there. Who are willing to sweep some things under the rug or ignore them for the sake of getting along.

32:49

Ask yourself this question. One day you're going to stand before the throne of Jesus Christ.

32:55

Like we all are. Do you really want to defend your actions of allowing his mother to be called a sinner?

33:01

Hail Mary full of grace. Pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death.

33:08

God love you. I'm Michael Voris. Well, thank you, Mr. Voris. You may need to ask the question of all those early church fathers who recognize that, well,

33:23

Mr. Voris, it's real simple. The book of Luke records Mary referring to God as her savior.

33:32

And you might say, oh, well, that's not a problem. She needed a savior, but it was a preemptive application of the merits of Christ and all that stuff that you.

33:40

I know it came along long, long after the New Testament. One simple question, Mr. Voris, and if you ever were to step out and debate these things in public, it's a question

33:49

I'd ask you then. And I don't mind telling you what the question is now, because to be honest with you, there is no meaningful answer to this question.

33:55

But Mr. Voris, do you really think that's what Mary meant when she said that? Do you really think that Mary in her magnificat, that she actually was saying that when she called

34:06

God her savior, she recognized that she had been kept from the stain of original sin by the preemptive application of the merits of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, when she didn't even understand at that point in time what

34:17

Jesus was going to have to do on the cross? Are you seriously telling me that? That, sir, is the grossest example of eisegesis and twisting of scripture you could ever give.

34:27

But it's all the Roman Catholic can do because your church forces you to. Because it's a false teaching church.

34:38

And you have just given us excellent example of it. You have distorted history and distorted scripture.

34:47

So there you go. Much more can be said about that. I would direct you to the web store at aleman .org

34:53

if you would like to listen to the debate with Christopher Rara on that subject from just last year. And by the way,

34:59

I did, I did look up something about Michael Voris. Um, this year, 2011 inducted into knighthood of the

35:10

Royal order of St. Michael of the wing, Royal house of Portugal.

35:17

Now there you go. Uh, anybody who is a knight of the Royal order of St.

35:23

Michael of the wing, St. Michael, the wing, what on earth is that?

35:29

I have no idea. But it struck me and I, I thought

35:34

I would share that. And it's right on the real catholic tv .com website. I didn't make that up. You can look it up yourself.

35:41

St. Michael, the wing. Um, there's much that could be said about that, but I'm going to avoid saying anything more or less.

35:48

I get myself into a lot of trouble in the process. All right, let's get back into this.

35:54

Um, I'm going to switch the, uh, I'm gonna switch the order here and, uh, go back to the

36:00

DM Muhammad material first, and then we'll wrap up. Uh, we are going to go for a jumbo.

36:06

They had to, because I threw that in. Uh, but we'll go back to the DM Muhammad material first and, uh, then finish up with the, um,

36:16

Bart Ehrman stuff. And hopefully we'll, uh, should finish my cross -ex of Ehrman. And then we can get back into his opening statement in his debate with Dan Wallace.

36:25

And, uh, I was talking with, uh, uh, Alan Kirshner and channel a day. He's one of our channel rats.

36:32

And, uh, we started outlining a book we'd love to do together. Cause I'd love to do something with Alan. Uh, he, uh, he has been trained in textual criticism in the hooty tooty schools, uh, back there in, in, uh, in the upper and in the

36:46

Northeastern United States, you know, and, um, he's gone to Harvard and, uh, places like that.

36:54

And, uh, anyway, we, we started throwing out chapter titles for a book we would put together responding to Ehrman's, uh, position.

37:04

And I think that, I think the title I came up with was, uh, at first it was

37:10

Be Ye Perfect, Bart Ehrman's, uh, ridiculous standards for the Trustworthiness of the New Testament.

37:15

I thought, no, no, Be Ye Photocopied, Bart Ehrman's ridiculous standards for the

37:20

Trustworthiness of the New Testament. That would be, that would be the way to go. Uh, but, um, uh, that would be, uh, uh, that'd be really, really enjoyable to do.

37:29

So we'll get to that. And if I don't start talking, we're never going to get to any of this. So let's get back to the D .O. Muhammad, uh, presentation against the deity of Christ.

37:36

We've already seen that Mr. Muhammad seems to believe that 1 John 5, 7, which he thinks is

37:41

John 5, 7 is the only verse on the Trinity in the Bible. And it's been taken out of the Bible. And at some point in this debate, he's going to say it was taken out for like 17 years and put back in because the

37:50

Bible thumpers got upset. Which again reveals, and it's important to understand this.

37:57

And some of you might be going, you know, the dissonance between listening to an Ehrman, who at least is a real scholar.

38:02

I mean, normally when he talks about a fact, he's got the facts, right? It's the, it's the, it's the application and interpretation is wrong.

38:09

Well, this is, this seems like someone who just really hasn't done their homework. That's true. But the reason that we have to still be able to respond to this is because that's where most

38:17

Muslims are. The vast majority of Muslims have this false idea that the text of the

38:23

Bible is this fluid thing that we can just sort of, I mean, the NIV translators can get, get together and change the

38:29

Bible if they want to, if that's what they decide to do, as if they have the power and ability. I mean, that's what anybody's thinking when they talk about Luther.

38:36

Well, you're Luther one, take James, draw the can. Well, you think Luther actually thought he had that capacity? I mean, seriously, that he could do that by himself?

38:45

Do you really think that that's what Luther thought of his own power and capacity?

38:50

I mean, that's just absurd. Uh, it just makes no sense at all, but we have to be able to deal with folks who have the idea that the text of the

39:02

Bible is literally that fluid. Push it, they put it back in. Not because God said so, not because Jesus said so, because the people demanded it.

39:11

I truly ask you, go and research and see if John chapter five, verse seven was ever taken out of the scripture.

39:20

Now, now here, that's where he said it's been put back in. And maybe that was the thing

39:25

I'm going to do. Do forgive me just for a moment here. I'm going to back it up just a second, because I want to see if that's where the

39:32

Bible thumpers came in. Of the scripture. Yep. Uh, we want to have both channels here.

39:39

There we go. The Bible tells us if you're trying to be six, four, a

39:46

Jew went up to Moses and said, evidently did not get far enough back there. Um, let's back it up a little bit more and see if this is where it is.

39:56

It goes. The only place where it's mentioned five, seven, John five, seven was taken out of the Bible. Then when the

40:02

Christians realize and the Bible thumpers realize that the priesthood as I couldn't push it, they put it back in.

40:08

Not because God said so, not because Jesus said so, because the people demanded it. Okay.

40:13

There it was. I had just, evidently we had just stopped it on the last program, right after the

40:20

Bible pushers, the Bible, the Bible thumpers, um, uh, the Bible thumpers got upset and so they put it back in again.

40:27

He keeps saying, go research this. And I just have to say to DM Muhammad, yes, sir. You need to go research this because you, you aren't even anywhere close.

40:35

And, and sir, if, if on my side, when I hear people talking about the

40:41

Quran or Islam from this level of ignorance, I point that out and say, don't do that.

40:48

It is not respectful. I don't care if you're a Christian, a Buddhist, a Muslim, a Hindu, an atheist.

40:54

I think there's just a basic level of respect you have to have for truth.

41:01

To make sure that if you're going to stand in a public setting and say something, that you have some basis for saying it.

41:08

And I'm sorry, sir. You have no basis for saying the things that you're saying here. None. You're just wrong.

41:14

The NIV translation committee does not control the text of the Bible. The NIV is not the only translation of the

41:19

Bible out there. It's only an English Bible. They, all they can control is what they produce in an

41:24

English translation of the Greek and Hebrew texts in front of them. And as we pointed out last time, 1

41:31

John 5, 7 has been known about forever. I mean, the controversy about this took place in the 1520s, sir, almost 500 years ago, it is not the key text on the

41:48

Trinity in the New Testament. And that's what bugs me when Bart Ehrman points to it is when we play his part, he's going to point to it as well.

41:56

Now he realizes far more than D .M. Muhammad does what the actual foundation of the

42:02

Trinity is, but he still points to it. And I don't, I don't know why. Because it's not a meaningful variant in the sense that when, when something shows up only 1400 years into church history in the

42:19

New Testament manuscript tradition, as far as the Greek manuscript tradition, it's just, it is not a plausible original reading.

42:30

So it, anyways, I just, I just simply say to D .M. Muhammad, because you are behind this media push to talk about Jesus as a, you know,

42:41

Islamic province like that. If you're going to engage in these things, sir, take the time to find out what you're actually engaging, or you're going to run the risk of misrepresenting the people you're denying.

42:53

And I know there are people that do that to Islam. I'm sorry, I'm doing my best not to. And I'm saying this to you as a, as a

43:01

Christian apologist and an elder in a church, I regularly teach,

43:07

I'm regularly involved in doing the work of a Christian apologist. I was at a hospital last night, had a dear friend, her sister passed away.

43:18

And so my wife and I, we went, we were with her when they, when they said goodbye to, to her sister.

43:23

I've done hospital work. I've been a hospital chaplain. I do regular ministry work. I'm not just sitting in an office someplace being an apologist going,

43:32

I'm going to get this group next or something like that. I have a full orbed life, been married for almost 30 years, two grown kids, and I think they turned out pretty well.

43:43

And yet in the middle of all that, what was I doing yesterday? Yeah, I was out riding a bike.

43:48

And some people say, you just do that too much. Well, it's how I stay alive. And it's also when

43:54

I study, you know what I was doing when I was riding yesterday? I, I, I knocked off an entire book yesterday. I had to do it like 20 minutes after the ride, but the course of the ride, 35 miles, about 3 ,700 feet of climbing.

44:08

Uh, and what did I do? I listened to an entire book on the history, the ancient history.

44:15

Anyway, it's not really ancient, it's almost medieval, but the history that brought about the

44:20

Sunni Shia split. I finally think I've got a pretty decent handle on that. And what happened just recently, uh, in the bombing just a few days ago,

44:35

Ashura just passed. Now I know what Ashura means. Now I, now I understand why the Shias go through the streets and cut themselves and, and what they're chanting and why they're chanting.

44:43

And I understand what happened with, uh, Hussein and, and his family. And, and now, you know,

44:50

I've got an idea, uh, it's really helped to fill in an area that was not, uh, real strong in my thinking.

44:56

And I, I continue someone yesterday. Thank you very much to whoever it was. I didn't recognize the name, but someone

45:02

I've never seen before, uh, bought me a, it's a book. I have the paper version in my library.

45:07

It's a big, huge, the Oxford Encyclopedia of Islam, but now it's on Kindle and that means

45:14

I can listen to it. You know how long it will take to listen to that thing? Oh, we're talking, let's put it in this, let's put it in miles, about 720 miles.

45:27

Worth the writing. And if, and if some of that's climbing, like it will be next week or one day next week,

45:34

I'm not going to mention where, but I'm going someplace next week. We're in one day.

45:40

My goal, my goal, not sure if I'm gonna make it, but my goal in one day, it's my birthday's next week.

45:45

So I, you know, I always do something for my birthday to, you know, cause I enter into my 50th year.

45:51

I don't turn 50. You turn, you enter into your 50th year on your 49th birthday, but I enter into my 50th year, uh, next week.

45:59

And on one day I'm going to try to climb 10 ,560 feet, which of course is two miles, 5 ,280 twice, duh.

46:10

Uh, and I'll be listening to the Oxford Encyclopedia of Islam while I'm doing it.

46:16

Now, why do I do that? First and foremost, to try to honor

46:22

God, because I don't believe that it is honoring to God, to present his truth. When you haven't done a study of the people that you're trying to reach.

46:31

That doesn't mean I wouldn't try to talk to somebody. I've never studied their religion. If the opportunity presented itself, but if I'm going to be addressing

46:37

Muslims, I'm going to be addressing these subjects. I think I need to do some study. That's why I have spent, I used to say hundreds of hours.

46:45

I would say it's well over a thousand now. Listening to Muslims lecturing and reading their books and listening to the

46:54

Quran and reading the Quran and the Hadith. You know how boring to a

46:59

Christian certain sections of Sahih al -Bukhari are, Mr. D .M. Muhammad, the sections on ablutions and, uh, well,

47:08

I'll just be perfectly honest with you, women's menstrual cycles. Oh, that's exciting stuff, but I'm listening to it.

47:15

I'm getting through it. Don't know how many hours I've spent. Why?

47:20

Because I want to be accurate in what I'm saying. And you might say, well, you messed it up here.

47:27

You messed it up. You know what? I, you can't show me somebody on your side that has put in as much work trying to understand the other side as I have.

47:35

You can't. It's just, they're just not there. I don't claim perfection and infallibility, but you can't show me anybody who tries harder.

47:48

So Mr. Muhammad, for me, it just bothers me a lot. And I have a reason to be bothered. When I hear you talking about a doctrine that is so precious to me, and I've spent so many years studying and teaching and writing about, and you say, well, the one verse of teaching that took it out of the

48:02

Bible, you don't even know what you're talking about. I invite you to learn the truth and to admit that you were wrong, that you just, you just didn't know what you were talking about.

48:16

That's the question. Will he be willing to do so? I, I truly ask you go and research and see if John chapter five, verse seven was ever taken out of the, of the, of the scripture.

48:30

Going back to the prophets and the messages, what was the one consistent message brought to all the prophets who gave it to their people?

48:40

The Bible tells us if you're trying to be six, four. Now, listen to this. This is interesting because if he asked me that question,

48:47

I would say from the Muslim perspective, the Muslim theological teaching is that every prophet sent from a law came with one message.

48:55

That was the message. That's what united them all together. Right? And so now he's going to try to basically say that the

49:03

Shema, Shema Yisrael, Yahweh Elohim, Yahweh Echad is the same thing as the Shahada.

49:10

But listen, did you hear him say earlier? Remember he said he had not brought his

49:15

Bible. That was a bad move on his part because he is citing from memory.

49:25

And that's not a good thing. It's not a good thing to cite from memory. It's really not because he doesn't get it right.

49:32

Now, listen to what he tries to do here. This is, this is sort of the Muslim example of Matthew 23, 37, where you, you, you quote the

49:43

Bible verse as you think it should be. In fact, to be honest with you, folks, this is a good example illustrating some of what we're talking about, scribal errors in the

49:53

New Testament, because how many times have you heard people quoting a text and they quote it the way they think it should be?

50:02

Well, you know, sometimes that happens in sermons, happens to us when we're preaching, and sometimes it happens even when you're copying the text, especially in patristic sources, when you're looking at, well, you know,

50:14

Irenaeus said this, or Tertullian said this, or blah, blah, blah. It's very easy in those contexts to misremember what the text actually said in the context of what you're saying.

50:25

So listen to how he presents the Shema. Shema Yisrael, you can look it up.

50:32

In fact, let me, let me look at it myself and provide it to you really quickly, because it's important to know what the context is.

50:41

Deuteronomy 6 .1 begins, Now this is the commandment, the statutes and rules that the

50:46

Lord your God commanded me to teach you, that you may do them in the land to which you are going over to possess it, that you may fear the

50:54

Lord your God, you and your son, and your son's son, by keeping all his statutes and his commandments, which

50:59

I command you, all the days of your life, and that your days may be long. Then you have, hear therefore,

51:05

O Israel, and be careful to do them, that it may go well with you, that you may multiply greatly as the

51:10

Lord your God, the God of your fathers, Yahweh, the God of your fathers has promised you, in a land flowing with milk and honey.

51:16

Then the Shema begins, Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.

51:22

Now, why do I emphasize this? Because there is nothing here about somebody coming up to Moses and asking him a question or anything.

51:33

It's just not there. With that in mind, we then go to what

51:41

Diya Muhammad says, listen to his rendition of the Shema. Before a

51:47

Jew went up to Moses and said, O Rabbi, Master, what is my first commandment?

51:56

And Moses said to him, in the language of the Hebrew, which he spoke, O children of Israel, He children of Israel, the

52:03

Lord our God, the Lord is one. That's what Moses said. Yeah, sure.

52:10

I'm not sure what version of the text he's reading. There's nothing about anybody walking up to Moses and saying,

52:16

Rabbi, what is the greatest commandment or anything like that? What he's trying to do is create a parallel between the giving of the

52:24

Shema and Jesus' response to someone who came up to him and asked him what the greatest commandment is.

52:30

And then you draw the parallel to Muhammad. So you've got Moses, you've got Jesus, you've got

52:35

Muhammad, those Christians, they just missed it. They just missed the whole idea and they went off on their own side or something like that.

52:44

But that's why I read what comes before the Shema. There's nothing about anybody coming up to Moses and asking him questions or anything else.

52:52

Two thousand years later, a Jew went to Jesus, peace and blessings be upon him, and said,

52:58

O Master, Rabbi, word for word, same question. What is the idea?

53:05

That's not in the Bible anyway. You just made this up. Who are you getting this stuff from? Why didn't you look this up for yourself? This is our first commandment.

53:12

And Jesus says, Hero Israel, the Lord, our God, the Lord is one. Now, if Trinity was what he was teaching, he should have said that the first commandment is to bear witness as a father, the son and the

53:22

Holy Ghost. And these three are one. Why? Why should he say that? Jesus affirmed the

53:29

Shema. We do not contradict the Shema. We believe God is one. We are not polytheists.

53:36

You may misunderstand what we believe. You may think we are polytheists. You're wrong. You've been misled.

53:45

But why would Jesus do that? And if that's the case, sir, then what do you do with First Corinthians 8, 6, which does exactly what you think should be said, and that is it uses the language of the

53:56

Shema and yet expands the Shema to include father and son.

54:03

One Lord, you know what the word Lord there is in the Shema, Mr. Mohammed, it's

54:09

Kurios, and that is used of Jesus in First Corinthians 8, 6. One Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things and we by him.

54:19

Does that sound like language? Do you really think that a monotheistic Jew, Diya, would apply?

54:26

The Shema to anyone but God. But you think Jesus is just a mere Rasul. He didn't do that.

54:35

He said the Lord, the Lord, our God is one. Six hundred and something years ago,

54:42

Prophet Mohammed appears, peace and blessings be upon him. And what is the first commandment of every Muslim is la ilaha illallah.

54:49

There is only one God. There is only one God. Moses preached it, Jesus preached it, and Mohammed preached it.

54:55

Tell me where the difference in theology is. Now you see, you see, by falsely attributing something to Moses, you've created this line.

55:04

But you know what? That's there's a there's it's very easy to understand why

55:10

Muslims will do this. That is the they're following a Quranic example at that point. They're following a

55:16

Quranic example at that point. And I know that I've mentioned this before, but we always have new folks that they're listening to the program for the first time.

55:27

And and I like to provide the background information. We want to make sure that, you know, if this is the only time you've been listening or something like that, that you're you're going to get all the information that you that you need.

55:39

But there this is an example. It's just like when I play the fig tree argument where the man in the debate that I did back in 1999 asked about the fig tree, and he was giving a

55:54

Quranic argument. If you look at Surah 4, Surah 5, part of the argumentation is, well, you know, we could have destroyed

56:00

Mary. We could have destroyed Jesus. They're just human beings. They eat their food. And you see,

56:06

God can't eat food, therefore. So so the guy was just following a Quranic example.

56:14

Well, that's exactly what the Mohammed is doing right now. In Surah Ta Maida, the table,

56:21

Surah 5, Ayah 44. Indeed, we sent down the

56:26

Torah, which was guidance and light. The prophets who submitted to Allah, judged by it for the Jews, as did the rabbis and scholars by that with which they were entrusted of the scripture of Allah.

56:35

And they were witnesses there too. So do not fear the people, but fear me and do not exchange my verses for a small price.

56:40

And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed and is those who are the disbelievers. We ordain for them therein a life for life.

56:46

An eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear, a tooth for a tooth. And for wounds is legal retribution. That's the text of the

56:52

Lex Talionis passage there coming from the Old Testament. Well, the only place is the

56:58

Bible is quoted and clearly only by memory at this point. And but whoever gives up his right as charity is an expiation for him.

57:11

And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed that is those who are the wrongdoers. Then I have 46. We sent following their footsteps.

57:17

Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming that which came before him in the Torah. And we gave him the gospel in which was guidance and light and confirming that which preceded with the

57:25

Torah as guidance and instruction for the righteous. So you've got we gave the Torah, then we sent

57:30

Jesus and he we gave him the gospel and he confirmed what came before him in the

57:36

Torah. And then one of my favorite texts in the

57:41

Quran, Surah 547, and let the people, the gospel, the Al -Anjil judged by what Allah has revealed therein.

57:48

And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, then it is those who are the defiantly disobedient. And we have revealed to you,

57:55

O Muhammad, the book and truth confirming that which preceded of the scripture and as a criterion over it.

58:01

So judge between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their inclination. You see the argument. I sent the

58:06

Torah, then I sent Jesus and he confirmed what was in the Torah and I gave him the gospel and now sent Moses and I've given him the

58:12

Quran confirming what was what in what came before him. You see, it's the same argument here found in the

58:18

Quran. Of course, Mr. Muhammad, I would have to point out that if I am to follow the argumentation of Surah 547, then

58:33

I've got a problem. Let the people of the gospel judge by what

58:39

Allah has revealed therein. Now, I'm not an expert on it on Arabic, but I have translated this text with my

58:47

Arabic tutor. We've looked through it very carefully. And when you look at this text, let the people of the gospel judge by what

59:06

Allah has revealed there in the only there in in the text is the gospel.

59:17

That's that's the only possible way to understand it.

59:26

So how, Mr. Muhammad, how could anyone in the days of Muhammad judge by what was in the gospel if they did not possess the gospel?

59:41

It seems beyond all logical contradiction. It seems beyond all logical contradiction that according to the

59:50

Quran itself. We are to judge what

59:55

Muhammad teaches by what is in the gospel and the gospel had to exist for the people to do that at that time.

01:00:06

So with that in mind, we know what the gospel was. We know what the

01:00:11

New Testament as a whole was in the days of Muhammad. So you're later going to say in this debate that the corruption took place before the days of Muhammad.

01:00:23

But then how would you explain Surah 547? And Mr.

01:00:29

Muhammad, if you should happen to take the time to listen, I'd be happy to have you on to answer that question.

01:00:34

We will give you airtime. We'll put you on. We'll let you explain these things. If you if you want to try to explain the mistake about the

01:00:43

Kami Ohanim, if you want to talk about that, be happy to have you on. Be happy to be happy to have you on right now.

01:00:49

If you happen to be listening live, I will put you on. There's a toll free phone number, 877 -753 -3341.

01:00:58

Not taking other calls because I move on to the Irmin debate now. But if Mr. Muhammad wants to call all the way from it's not really toll free from Australia, but maybe he's got one of those really cheap long distance phone cards.

01:01:11

We'll be happy to have a discussion about this. That would be that would be fine with me. All right.

01:01:16

We will continue at that point with the Dea Muhammad debate. But now I want to get back to the

01:01:23

Bart Irmin debate. And that right now means that I'm trying to finish up the the material from the cross examination that I did with him in 2009 because it's laying some of the foundation to be able to understand more fully his claims in the debate that took place on October 1st with Dan Wallace.

01:01:59

So we're a little over halfway through that. I'm not sure I'm playing all of it, but let's let's go back and listen.

01:02:05

Continuing where we picked up last time to that cross examination of Bart Irmin. OK. And looking at that particular particular one, you do believe that Orgis Thys is the original there.

01:02:19

That's right. Would you comment on what has been said by Dr. Parker, for example, where he says the more he studied

01:02:28

Codex Besi Candibrigensis, the more he's become convinced that its unique readings, especially when they're alone, are insignificant.

01:02:38

If you're searching for the original reading or Dr. Olin's assertion that any of the readings of Besi, when they do not have earlier attestation, should be looked at somewhat askance.

01:02:53

Yeah, well, Olin doesn't like Codex Besi. Parker loves Codex Besi, but he does have the suspicion about it.

01:02:59

But I believe Parker agrees with me on Mark 141, doesn't he? I have no idea what he says. Now, the question

01:03:05

I was asking here goes to the reliability of the first source for the reading of Orgis Thys angry, became angry at Mark 141.

01:03:21

When you read what Parker says, when you read what Metzger says, when you read what other textual critics have said about Codex Besi Candibrigensis, they all say the same thing.

01:03:31

When it goes off on its own with a reading that has no earlier attestation, it's one of those places where this isn't a copy of the

01:03:41

New Testament. It is a commentary. Remember, this is the same text that when

01:03:46

Peter is freed from the jail by the angel, remember? In the

01:03:52

Book of Acts. And he goes down to the street and then he finds the Christians and he knocks on the door and, you know, the woman doesn't believe it's him and leaves him standing out there hoping a

01:04:02

Roman soldier doesn't come running around the corner or something like that. It's a funny scene. But in Besi, when

01:04:08

Peter goes down to the street. The author of Besi felt it was important for us to know exactly how many steps he descended.

01:04:20

Now, that's found no place else. It's meant to be a literary commentary, a fluffing up.

01:04:29

And let's smooth this out. And Besi is filled with this stuff. And this is the first place that we get this reading.

01:04:38

Now, it is also found in some commentaries. And I think Origen mentioned something.

01:04:46

But the point is that any reading that has that kind of foundation to it is highly suspect.

01:05:01

That was why I was asking what I was asking. I don't really end up getting an answer to that particular portion of my question.

01:05:08

Well, 141 he didn't comment on in Codex Besi, in his book on it. Yeah, no, it's a great book. But I think that he agrees with me on Mark 141.

01:05:15

However, is it not true that Scrivener, Metzger in the book you have right there and commenting on Besi, they all recognize that Codex Besi is incredibly free?

01:05:27

Oh, yeah, I think so, too. I think a lot of its variants, in fact, are very strange indeed. So it shows that how early manuscripts differ so widely from one another.

01:05:37

This is a case in point. Now, see, that is just that's not fair. That's not fair, because is he seriously suggesting that the differences between, say,

01:05:52

P -75 and P -66, and there are a number, P -66, the scribe was not good, P -75, the scribe was good in a documentary hand, but but he was good, not pretty, but he was good.

01:06:08

Is he seriously suggesting the differences we have there are the same type of differences as we have in Codex Besi Canterburgiensis, where you have a a scribe who is does not feel that he is limited to the actual original text.

01:06:25

He's commenting. He's he's smoothing it out. He's a literary critic, for crying out loud.

01:06:31

That is not a fair analysis of what those earlier scribes were doing.

01:06:38

It just isn't. So if Codex Besi adds all sorts of commentary, the number of steps

01:06:46

Paul stepped down, the time frame when he lectured in Acts, all these things are added.

01:06:55

Why wouldn't it be more likely, given that there is no earlier manuscript support for that reading, that the writer of Codex D saw the very same strong language that you yourself have pointed to in your argumentation?

01:07:09

He casts him out. He strongly upbraids him and made a change, as he did in so many other places in his writings.

01:07:18

That's a standard argument. That's what people have said for years. And now, did you catch that? That's a standard argument. That's what people have said for years.

01:07:24

So I'm arguing in line with the standard textual critical understanding of this text.

01:07:33

In fact, to my knowledge, all modern translations agree.

01:07:39

So who's in the mainstream here? That would be me, the funny looking bald man.

01:07:45

OK, just so you're catching that. I'm not the one out on the far end of things here.

01:07:52

I disagree with it. I think that, in fact, on internal grounds, there are internal grounds, not external grounds.

01:07:59

So he's arguing internally, which is his interpretation. Of this particular text, there are solid reasons for saying, thinking that it was

01:08:07

Orge's face. My principal reasoning has nothing to do with the value of Codex Bize.

01:08:14

So my principal reasoning has nothing to do with the value of the earliest manuscript that actually contains this reading.

01:08:21

This is a textual critic speaking. I just want you to catch this. As you probably know, I mean, you've read my articles on it.

01:08:27

So I assume you've read my article on Mark 141. So that isn't it.

01:08:32

It's not. Yeah. See, when I debated him, I had his Brill compilation. Hundred and sixty nine dollars for that little that little booger.

01:08:40

I had his doctoral dissertation in front of me. I was sitting I was you want to know how

01:08:46

I do preparation. I sat in Alaska. At sunset next to the ocean.

01:08:57

Reading Bart Ehrman's doctoral dissertation, OK, and I don't think he even

01:09:04

Googled my name before he showed up for that. Codex Bize is, to some extent, neither here nor there.

01:09:13

It provides us with the reading, but it isn't the strong argument for the reading being original. OK, and would that be one of the readings that you feel changes the entire meaning of a book?

01:09:26

Well, no, I wouldn't put it that way with that reading. I would say that that reading provides a different nuance.

01:09:32

Jesus gets angry a couple of times in the Gospel of Mark. And it's it's interesting to to try and see why he gets angry in the

01:09:39

Gospel of Mark. And this would be another place where he gets angry. And Mark, I mean, it strikes it struck most scribes is a little bit odd for him to get angry at this point.

01:09:47

And this leper comes up and wants to be healed. And it says Jesus got angry. And so, well, that's a little hard to figure out.

01:09:53

No wonder they changed it to he felt compassion for the man. It makes sense that they would make the change. But in fact, he probably said he got angry.

01:10:01

And then the task of the exegete, the interpreter, is to try and make sense of why it is.

01:10:09

Now it says that Jesus got angry when this leper approached him. And so it changes the meaning of the book to the extent that it gives you a fuller understanding of why

01:10:21

Jesus gets angry in the Gospel of Mark. By the way, he doesn't get angry in Matthew or Luke when you repeatedly say that we don't know what the original writings of the

01:10:33

New Testament said, given that there are entire sections of text where there is no variation basically at all.

01:10:43

Would you agree that we know what those sections of the

01:10:49

New Testament say? OK, let me let me explain why. So now this actually goes back to the earlier question.

01:10:56

I want to try to flesh this out some. The large majority of the

01:11:02

New Testament, there's there's no variation. I mean, I've always I'd like to use the example in Hebrews chapter seven where the term operabaton appears.

01:11:11

He holds his priesthood without successor or permanently operabaton. And we've never seen there's no

01:11:21

Greek manuscript anywhere that does not have operabaton. That's just most of the words of the

01:11:29

New Testament. That's the case. There's no there's no variation. And it is a radical position, a radical, radical position to say that, well, but unless we have the originals, we don't really know.

01:11:49

Because, you see, when you have a body of literature that spans the time, the length of time and the geographical area of distribution of the

01:12:05

New Testament that gives you no evidence in its earliest form of variation at a point in time, then there is no reason to believe that there has ever been variation there at all.

01:12:23

This is where Ehrman is in direct contradiction to so many others. This is where he's out in left field.

01:12:30

Now, he may be dragging people with him, but it's not because of the force of the arguments. It's political.

01:12:40

And so I'm trying to flesh out this idea that if you're going to make the assertion, well,

01:12:45

OK, yeah, every manuscript has been found of Hebrews, it says operabaton. But, you know, before those first copies, it might have said something else.

01:12:55

If you're going to make that argument, you're using, I call it the, it's the Star Trek argument.

01:13:01

It's a Star Trek argument. I love Star Trek. I'm a Trekkie. OK, there are a couple of the later series

01:13:09

I didn't get into, but especially the original ones and then the next generation. I saw all of them multiple times.

01:13:16

I mean, I'm so old. I saw them when they were first airing. I remember that's how I got stuck on it. And there's one episode

01:13:26

I actually have it on my iPad where the the Enterprise gets slung back in time to the 1960s and it gets flung into the into Earth's atmosphere.

01:13:39

And for some reason, they're having trouble climbing. Well, it wouldn't have much of a story if they couldn't, but if they could just go zipping back out into space.

01:13:46

But they get caught on radar. And we sent up one of these, what was it?

01:13:52

I've forgotten now which jet fighter it was. It was that. What? No, it was like an

01:13:58

F -105 or something like that. Yeah, it wasn't a Phantom. Oh, no, it was not an

01:14:03

F -4 Phantom. No, no, it was before the Phantom. I'll show it to you and we'll remember it. I used to I used to just be able to rip off all those all those names.

01:14:11

But I haven't looked at when I was a kid. I could anyways. Anyhow, they send up a ship to take a look at it.

01:14:16

And so to save themselves, they they put a tractor beam on it and they beam the pilot out and they save his life.

01:14:24

But then they find out that they can't they can't really send him back because now he knows about the future. But then they find out that his son's going to lead a mission to Mars.

01:14:32

And so they have to take him back. And so they have to figure out how to go back in time and fix everything. OK, the point is, and some of the other ones got into this, too, that you can always come up with a excuse for something.

01:14:48

You can you can come up with the idea that, well, you know, maybe the Enterprise did come back and and maybe they they wanted

01:14:57

Christianity to come into existence. And so they beamed down some replicated copies of the

01:15:04

Gospels and stuff that that would that would help change the future.

01:15:09

I mean, you can you can come up with anything's possible, right? And there's so many shallow thinking people in the world that go, well, that is possible.

01:15:22

How about that? And if you take that perspective, you end up abandoning all meaningful canons of historical research.

01:15:33

F -104, thank you very much. Thank you, Micah. Captain John Christopher piloted an F -104 codenamed

01:15:39

Blue J -4 in 1969 when he made visual contact with USS Enterprise, which was perceived as a UFO. Thank you very much,

01:15:45

Hasim, son of Ramallah, king of graphics. It was an

01:15:51

F -104, it's pretty, it's very nice. Anyhow, the

01:15:56

Starfighters, yeah, and that was a great it was a great episode. It was really well done, had lots of humor in it.

01:16:01

Remember the guard who just sort of froze when he saw Scotty in the transport? It was great. Anyways, I'm getting off topic here.

01:16:09

My point is that if you give in to the, well, anything's possible type way of thinking, you're never going to do serious history.

01:16:20

And if you have an ancient document coming from antiquity that, excuse me, that comes into history at different places and at different times.

01:16:36

So we have manuscripts that were written in Asia and in Palestine and in North Africa and maybe up in Italy or Greece.

01:16:46

And they traveled around and they weren't just in one area. And because during the time of the Roman Empire, there was still a lot of travel.

01:16:52

It's not like during the medieval period where people never move seven miles from their house. There was much more commerce and it was the

01:16:58

Pax Romana and all the rest of that. If the book of Hebrews or any other book of the

01:17:05

New Testament. Existed in some radically different form. We would have evidence of it because we have multiple lines coming into appearance in history.

01:17:22

Those things wouldn't have just, those readings would not just disappear. And what I'm telling you here is not just me.

01:17:29

Go read Kurt Allen's work on the subject. That's his argument and her argument.

01:17:35

Kurt and Barbara. Kurt, as Airman pronounced it.

01:17:41

That's their argument. That's been the argument of everybody until these radical skeptics come along.

01:17:49

And so if you're the one asserting, well, OK, we have an absolutely unified manuscript tradition going way, way back, coming from multiple lines.

01:17:59

And there's no variant here, but I still withhold judgment. You are a radical skeptic.

01:18:07

Radical. You're not mainline and don't pretend that you are and don't say, well, but I'm, I'm, I'm me.

01:18:17

I can do whatever I want. I can't wait for the day when New Testament textual criticism will recover from this radicalism and get back to its real job of establishing and firmly confirming the original text of the

01:18:33

New Testament, because I don't think it's I've explained it very well. Let's say

01:18:39

Paul wrote his letter to the Philippians and now.

01:18:44

Now, here is Ehrman expressing his own theory of the radicalness of his perspective.

01:18:53

Listen carefully to how he says this. They got a copy and then somebody made a copy of that original and then made a couple of mistakes and then somebody copied that copy, made a few mistakes, and then the original was lost and the first copy was lost.

01:19:08

Now, stop right there. Can you imagine this? Paul writes the letter.

01:19:15

Only one copy is made of Paul's letter, just one.

01:19:22

The original, don't know what happens. Paul, Timothy.

01:19:30

They have nothing more to do with this. They never show up in a church service where someone misquotes it.

01:19:38

And Paul says, no, that's not what I said. No, no, no, that can't happen. You can't have multiple copies made.

01:19:45

You can't even have multiple copies made in the presence of Paul. I mean, like Ephesians. It's possible he only wrote one.

01:19:54

He only had written, using Emanuelsis, only had one copy written. And then as it went to each church, they had to do their own copying.

01:20:02

But it's also possible that he dictated it once. And then in his presence, his same

01:20:08

Emanuelsis made more than one copy to send to more than one church. You see, this type of radical skepticism is dependent upon the idea that the originals have very little impact upon that time period.

01:20:24

And they disappeared like that, just gone. No longer a part of the copying process.

01:20:31

What if the original stayed around for 30 years and spawned 30, 40 different lines of transmission?

01:20:42

If that happened, and which is more likely? Think about it.

01:20:48

If that happened, Ehrman's theories are dust, absolute dust.

01:20:57

Because if you have that many lines going into that period of persecution, where there's so many copies of scriptures were destroyed.

01:21:02

Remember, I started this by reading from a scholarly source that documents the number of manuscripts confiscated, destroyed from a single church in the early 4th century.

01:21:19

Remember, was it 37 or 34? Off the top of my head, I think it was 37. 37 manuscripts.

01:21:26

I think that's aside from the one they found in the church cells at 38. Let's round it off to a nice even 40. 300 some odd of those churches, just in Egypt?

01:21:37

Start doing the math. That's a lot of manuscripts that were destroyed. And yet we still have the earliest attestation as Bart Ehrman himself admits.

01:21:49

That means there were a lot of these things running around. Where'd they all come from so fast? Oh, but the originals weren't being copied.

01:21:58

You think so? And that all other manuscripts ultimately derived from that third copy.

01:22:09

Did he catch that? All manuscripts come from the third copy. This is such a wild, out in left field theory.

01:22:20

But he gives it, well, we don't know. That might have been. But you got to realize it has to be for his perspective to hold true.

01:22:30

It has to be. Because if it's not, then all of this falls apart.

01:22:37

In other words, that third copy was, the original wasn't copied anymore. The first copy wasn't copied anymore.

01:22:43

Only the second copy was copied twice. And both of those was copied five times. And each of those was copied 20 times. So they all go back in a genealogical line to the third copy.

01:22:51

Except it also does not, this straight line thinking that he always engages in really bothers me.

01:23:00

Because there is evidence that the scribes had access to more than one manuscript at times.

01:23:07

Now, sure, there'd be times when it was a one to one correspondence. No question about that. But what, you've got to realize the

01:23:15

Christians got together for worship. And that means that they read scripture.

01:23:21

And if there was more than one copy in some of these large churches, there had to have been more than one copy of scripture available to them.

01:23:27

If there were differences, now they have to deal with it. And when they made copies, then copy us.

01:23:35

That's where the conflated readings start coming from. And the development of the Byzantine text type very early on in the transmission of the text of the

01:23:42

New Testament. All of this demonstrates that it wasn't a phone game type thing.

01:23:49

And that there was, there were all sorts of other sources of input that would negate the very type of theory that Ehrman's putting forward here.

01:24:00

Rather than to the original, all you can reconstruct is what was in the third copy and all manuscripts, when they agree, 95 % of the time.

01:24:09

Now, oh, I just, I just realized something I had not even thought about. I just realized something. I could never get him, and no one

01:24:19

I think ever will, get him to do what

01:24:25

I think on a moral basis he'd have to do. And that is apply the same standards that he applies in the

01:24:31

New Testament to the Quran. He sits around going, I don't know anything about the Quran. I don't believe it. I think he's just scared.

01:24:38

He makes good money bashing Christianity. Why put himself in danger addressing the issue of Islam?

01:24:46

But did you hear what he just said? Did you hear what he just said? Well, if that's the case, then all you can do is reconstruct that third generation copy.

01:25:00

That's what the Uthmanic revision is, Muslim friends.

01:25:07

And now you're listening to Bart Ehrman. If he was consistent, he would apply this to your book.

01:25:14

Because your Hadith tells us this is what happened. This is what happened.

01:25:22

The third Khalif, Uthman, he puts together that group.

01:25:30

And they find some ayahs that they had forgotten. And they combine it all together and then he burns what he used to make it.

01:25:40

And from Ehrman's perspective, well, that's as far back as you can get. And his point then is you can't know the original.

01:25:49

And that means the consistent application of Bart Ehrman's methodology to the

01:25:54

Qur 'an is you can't know the original. So every one of you that wants to go running off and quoting

01:26:02

Bart Ehrman, if you're going to be honest, then you have to know that his application of his reasoning to your own text is you can't know the original.

01:26:17

Every one of you that starts quoting him to me in the future in a debate, you better believe me, I'm going to be ready to point that out to you.

01:26:23

I'm going to point it out to you. Just warning you ahead of time, I like this consistency thing.

01:26:30

The time or whatever number you want to put on it, when they agree, 95 % of the time, that just shows that they all go back to that copy.

01:26:38

It doesn't show they go back to the original. And so this kind of perspective,

01:26:46

I want to make sure that we're all understanding exactly what you're saying. This is why you would say that if anything was ever inspired, in essence, we'd have to have the original for it to be inspired.

01:26:58

Now, he has raised this issue himself in his own books.

01:27:06

But it was the one thing he said, I will not debate that against you. And he gets mad at me right here. I told you a long time ago, actually, it had only been about two months ago, where we had a very unpleasant phone call.

01:27:17

But this is in his own books. He's the one who raises it. And then he gets mad when people challenge him on this.

01:27:25

I don't get why he gets upset when he puts it in his own books. I told you long ago that this was not going to be a debate about my doctrine of inspiration.

01:27:33

Even though my doctrine of inspiration is absolutely central to the conclusions that I draw on this matter.

01:27:40

I will not defend the presuppositions that I bring to this debate. That's what he's saying. Maybe he doesn't realize it.

01:27:48

Maybe he does not see just how absolutely controlled he is by this.

01:27:54

I don't know. I don't know. But we're within, let's see, where are we?

01:27:59

We've got less than four minutes left in the cross -ex. So we'll finish that off next time. We had to go a little bit slower, or a little bit less time, because we threw in the first thing with the

01:28:09

Michael Voris thing. Well, there you go, folks. There is a wide -ranging divine. It's the immaculate conception.

01:28:15

1 John 5 -7 Islam. Bart Ehrman. Back to Uthman. We put it all together somehow in the program for you today.

01:28:23

Looking forward to being back together with you again next week on Tuesday. Morning at our regular time here on The Dividing Line.

01:28:30

We'll see you then. God bless. The Dividing Line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega Ministries.

01:29:25

If you'd like to contact us, call us at 602 -973 -4602, or write us at P .O.

01:29:30

Box 37106, Phoenix, Arizona, 85069. You can find us on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Instagram. You can also find us on the

01:29:35

World Wide Web at AOMIN .org. That's A -O -M -I -N dot O -R -G, where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books, tapes, debates, and tracks.